>
>The response?
>
>Well, in classical McCarthyist fashion, we are told that one would object to
>the public exposure of such a person if one were not a party to such
>politically incorrect behavior oneself. To wit, Kelley,
><< i would suggest that it is your own uptight repressed feelings about gay
>sexuality... >>
you can be gay and be uptight and repressed about it. duh. you, buddy, accused me of being the uptight sex police and ascribed to me positions i did not take in this debate. furthermore, you challenged my sexuality and sexual orientation in the first place by calling me the sex police. so give it a rest.
feel free to show me where i said anything you've claimed i've said. as you comb thru the posts don't forget the numerous times that i said that don't want to legislate private behavior. yes, i do judge unprotected casual sex whether it's between same sex couples or not.
i made several points:
1. i objected to justin: i think hypocrisy is an issue when someone is a public figure who finger wags and who has done a great deal to reinscribe dangerous stereotypes about how a core of gay men are "pathological" (sexually).
2. i didn't even read the LGNY piece. i had no idea about what exactly Sullivan was charged with--except by way of reading what Sullivan, himself, wrote. unlike others here, i didn't particularly care about the details of what he actually did. I WAS CRITICIZING WHAT HE WROTE AND HOW HE CONCEIVED OF SEX AND SEXUALITY. he naturalizes sex without condoms as the "real" sex and in doing so he draws on the same motif as those who argue that GLBT sex isn't natural or real. why was that so hard for you to grasp? too much lube?
3. christian asked if i didn't believe sullivan. i answered him as to why i didn't believe him: a. i don't believe that sullivan has to wait til the second date to talk about HIV. if on the first meeting they don't know he's HIV, then they're living under a rock eh? b. i don't believe that he was just looking for a long term monogamous relationship for barebacking because he advertised on a barebacking site that is devoted to unprotected anal sex --and not just between two HIV+ men or two HIV- men. it's not so much that i was judging the practice at that point, but i was pointing out that there are plenty of places to advertise for HIV+ lovers. barebackcity.com is only one among many and not exactly devoted to the monogamy that sullivan wants everyone to engage in and, indeed, it is just the kind of thing that sullivan subtly slams in his gossipy little insider accounts of the scene.
4. i raised the barebacking issue to christian and specifically asked him a question which he didn't answer. i also raised and made clear to raise it separately from my crits of sullivan's rhetoric.
i found the approach to the issue here simplistic. i was asking why it wasn't problematized. there is certainly more to it than the simplistic libertarian stance taken here. and clearly, there is more to it since most people qualified there discussion of it by talking about there being nothing wrong as long as it was consensual. well, as anyone knows, it isn't always consensual and consensual runs into all sorts of problems with tops and bottoms making all kinds of assumptions about who should take responsibility. yadda.